German atrocities in WWII, systematic or just like everyone else?

[Kramerman]

so whats evil? breaking the 10 comandments?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Kramerman
so whats evil? breaking the 10 comandments?

Not to someone who is not interested in religion, like me. However, some of the moral precepts (as opposed to the religious nonsense) I believe hold true for most people- not killing (except in self-defence) not stealing (except if you have no other option, and were starving).

Evil is so vague and ill-defined a term anyway- to a Reformation Calvinist, the Pope in Rome could embody evil, and to a Catholic a Unitarian might be evil.

To me, it's the moral equivalent of arguing over whether or not to break a boiled egg at the big end or the little end.

I find the wanton destruction or pollution of ecosystems thousands of years' old evil- to others it's apparently the price of progress. A strange kind of progress to take a dump where you eat....

[Kramerman]

yes, and many people would disagree with you. some slightly, some entirely. Most people have their own individual definition of 'evil'. Truth is that there is no correct definition of evil, just like there is no correct passage of time. It is relative Unless, of course, you would like to argue that what you think is evil is the true definition of evil

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by BeBro


I don´t think in such simplistic ways

But I agree fully with Molly´s post(s) - I think in the end everyone is basically capable of doing evil things, but it is fortunately not a natural law that we all have to do such things.

i too mostly agree with molly's post

only instead of everyone being capable of doing evil things, everyone is capable of doing things that others perceive as evil (i.e. i have sex with my gf, some religious right shmo would condemn me to hell, where as someone else would shrug, and perhaps a few would worship the act as holy)

[Ned]

Molly, I don't know whether the US would have done had NY City been bombed as was London. I hardly think, though, that we would have lined up our German POWs and mowed them down. The issue was discussed, here for example, in the leadup to the Iraq war. If Saddam hit us with a nuke, would we respond by nuking Baghdad. I said then, and I really believe this, that we would not.

As to Japan, we dropped leaflets warning of impending attacks. It is unfortunate that so many Japanese simply ignored our warnings (or were they forced to ingore them by the military?). The sole exception were Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which is why I lumped them in with Hamburg and Dresden.

Molly, you will admit, will you not, that Britain's response to Germany's attacks on London and Coventry far exceeded the scope of those attacks. I have no idea whether anyone ever considered negotiating a cease fire with Hitler on bombing civilians. He might have taken the deal when the tide turned against Germany.

But by then, Britain was more into blood revenge, somewhat similar to the motivation of the Russians.

[Ben Kenobi]

Kramerman:

Your posts negate the presence of evil whatsoever. If evil is merely what others think of someone, how then do you account for such atrocities as have appeared in this thread?

Would you go to a Jew and tell him that the Nazis are only evil because the Jews believe they are evil? That to another person, neither nazi nor Jew, their actions could be good?

Just because we do not believe our own actions to be wrong, it does not make them so. We can hurt people in many ways especially when we believe that we are in the right.

The reason I quoted Heart of Darkness in the thread is because it makes two arguments about the nature of man and evil, first, that evil has always been a part of man, and secondly, it shows you the presence of evil, as a real physical force.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ned
As to Japan, we dropped leaflets warning of impending attacks. It is unfortunate that so many Japanese simply ignored our warnings (or were they forced to ingore them by the military?). The sole exception were Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which is why I lumped them in with Hamburg and Dresden.

Are you saying that the USAAF dropped warnings of conventional bomber raids and neglected to do so for the 2 nuclear raids?

[Ned]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Are you saying that the USAAF dropped warnings of conventional bomber raids and neglected to do so for the 2 nuclear raids?

Yes. I think this is the case, although I am not sure about Nagasaki.

Hiroshima was a major exception to the prior rule of dropping leaflets.

Consider, that the major attacks on Japanese cities occurred after Dresden and the huge negative reaction of the American people when they learned what happened. By then, the government knew that it could not deliberately target women and children and justify it in any way to the American people.

Thus, when Truman announced the use of the A-bomb, he said that we had attacked a "military base." He could not tell the people what really happened.

[Ned]

Ben, one of things I really appreciate about you is your moral clarity and consistency. You do not excuse bad behavior by point to other equally bad behavior by others. Bravo!

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Ned
As to Japan, we dropped leaflets warning of impending attacks. It is unfortunate that so many Japanese simply ignored our warnings (or were they forced to ingore them by the military?). The sole exception were Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which is why I lumped them in with Hamburg and Dresden.

Please explain me how the warnings make the action afterwards any better. If I going to kill my neighbor, but warn him before, it doesn´t mean the killing is justified or that it is his own fault (cause he ignored my warning).

[Ned]

I do not know the details of the war in the Phillippines. Perhaps we Americans do not study it for a reason.

But I can tell you one of the reasons we turned against the war in Vietnam were scenes like the one shown on the nightly news where we napalmed a village and witnessed burned women and children running down the road a few minutes later. No American wants to be associated with this kind of war.

[Ned]

Originally posted by BeBro


Please explain me how the warnings make the action afterwards any better. If I going to kill my neighbor, but warn him before, it doesn´t mean the killing is justified or that it is his own fault (cause he ignored my warning).

The "action" was the firebombing on cities in order to destroy wooden factories that were interspersed widely among the civilian areas.

The purpose of the leaflets was to avoid civilian casualties.

The warning was not to the effect that we are going to kill you. It was to the effect that we are going to bomb HERE. You should get out of the way.

[BeBMan]

I don´t know if I should find that sad or rather funny.

[Ned]

Originally posted by BeBro
I don´t know if I should find that sad or rather funny.

It does illustrate the difference between Dresden and Tokyo. Dresden was about terrorism.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
No American wants to be associated with this kind of war.

Which is why we no longer get to see those kinds of images.